Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Michel [2011] JRC 012 (17 January 2011)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

There is no reasonable suspicion of bias as the actions of the former Attorney-General are not certain to be questioned or relevant at trial; therefore, the judge must not recuse himself.

Court disposition

application for recusal declined

Orders

  • Judge declines to recuse himself and will continue to sit in the trial.

02

Material facts

Parties

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Mr Preston

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Trial / Application for Recusal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the judge should recuse himself due to potential bias

Party arguments

Applicant
The conduct of the former Attorney-General might be called into question during the trial, potentially raising issues of bias.
Respondent
There is no certainty that the actions of the former Attorney-General will be questioned or that he will be a witness at the trial.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Esteem Settlement and No 52 Trust [2001] JLR 169

    A judge has a duty not to recuse himself unless a properly informed and reasonable man would consider there is a reasonable suspicion of bias.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

There is no reasonable suspicion of bias as the actions of the former Attorney-General are not certain to be questioned or relevant at trial; therefore, the judge must not recuse himself.

Obiter and limits

  • If Defence counsel had been able to say that the actions of the former Attorney-General would be called into question then recusal would likely have been appropriate.

Court disposition

application for recusal declined

  • Judge declines to recuse himself and will continue to sit in the trial.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2011] JRC 012

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. I have been asked to consider recusing myself as the Judge in this trial. Counsel for the defendant has helpfully placed before me the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Esteem Settlement and the Number 52 Trust and I have considered carefully the passages cited by Vaughan JA in particular at paragraph 21 et seq. It seems clear from that passage that a judge has a duty not to recuse himself unless he thinks that a properly informed and reasonable man would consider that there was a reasonable suspicion that the judge might be biased against the defendant.

2. The only matter that has given me some concern in the submissions of counsel is the possibility that the conduct of the former Attorney-General might be called into question during the course of this trial. Mr Preston has very candidly told me that he cannot say that the actions of the former Attorney-General will be questioned, nor that he will be a witness at the trial. I must say from my reading of the papers that it is difficult to see how an argument related to those matters could assist the defendant or be relevant at the trial. If Defence counsel had been able to say that the actions of the former Attorney-General would be called into question then I should very likely have recused myself.

3. As things stand it seems to me that I have a duty to sit and I accordingly decline to recuse myself. Authorities The Esteem Settlement and No 52 Trust [2001] JLR 169 . Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Esteem Settlement and No 52 Trust [2001] JLR 169

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.